Talk:Monk 12/ cleric 15/ weapon master 13
Style This page needs an overhaul to remove the first- and second- person pronouns. --The Krit 22:32, June 2, 2011 (UTC) * As for the style, I can understand your point when compared to the austere and immaculately groomed objective texts of the other articles but felt like offering a little subjective perspective could help debunk a few myths by broadening the scoop of the catagories focus. I wouldn't even know what I would remove from the article, so I'll leave it to the community to comb and modify. I'm really just interested in some responses pertaining to the quality of the character. --Lightkeep 23:20, June 2, 2011 (UTC) :* Subjective perspective and encyclopedic information are rather incompatible, and sticking to the latter makes it much easier to resolve disputes. Plus, the manual of style does specifically state that first- and second- person pronouns should be avoided in articles. Not that you personally have to clean up this article (after all, wiki articles do not "belong" to any individual), but it does need to be done. :: Also, new sections in a talk page are for starting new discussions, not replying to existing ones. Just indent the reply so it's easy to see where the reply begins. Using a bullet makes it easier to see where replies begin when there are multiple replies to the same comment (versus a reply with multiple paragraphs), but sometimes simple indents are used. (In wikitext, this means adding a colon to the beginning of each line, but I don't know what complications the WYSIWYG editor introduces.) --The Krit 23:38, June 2, 2011 (UTC) * Ah, I've noticed that part of what was included in the article is really a discussion about the article, rather than information about the subject of the article. I'm moving that to this talk page, where that sort of discussion belongs. In this case, use of the first person and expression of opinions is perfectly acceptable. --The Krit 23:59, June 30, 2011 (UTC) Skills What is the point in specifying a single rank in each of search, spot, listen, lore, persuade, hide, and move silently? The single ranks are insignificant enough that the skill points might as well as well be lumped in with the "spend to module circumstances" category. (Single ranks in open lock and disable trap make some sense since those skills require training, but even then, the module might make other skill investments more useful.) --The Krit 22:32, June 2, 2011 (UTC) * The reason I mentioned 1 in each of the skills and provided a note about considering the possible skill total using the trickery domain activated ability is because I feel that it can illuminate the idea for people about the possible power of a single skill point in some skills. If I were uncertain of how to build a character and I read the other character builds it might never occur to me that with two points (non-class skill) that I could compromise a DC 43 locked chest or door with 1 + d20 + 9 (dex) + 8 (trickery domain) + 6 (Amulet of the Master). Greatly increasing the character's range of talent and flexibilty, specifically for solo adventuring, at almost no cost. --Lightkeep 23:20, June 2, 2011 (UTC) :* Yes, a single rank in open lock or disable trap can be quite useful for those reasons, which is why I did not include them in the main list (and why I often make that sort of investment for most of my characters). Why the single rank in the skills that allow untrained skill checks? --The Krit 23:41, June 2, 2011 (UTC) ::* I didn't know about the untrained skill checks, I'll look into that. I guess I was just trying to provide information as close to how I did it in a bare bones format as possible, so I'll go through the skills and see which ones could be removed. --Lightkeep 00:09, 3 June 2011 :::* Well, since someone (you) learned something because of your contribution (this page), I'd say your contribution was a success. :) While you take another look at what skills are truly "most important" to this build, I'm going to go ahead and wipe the single-rank skills from that list. You can always add some back if you discover that any are more important than it seems at the moment. Oh, and I'll make sure the open lock article mentions how far one can go with just a single rank. (For some reason I thought that had been mentioned already.) --The Krit 19:18, June 3, 2011 (UTC) Thought of something else -- the ranks in spellcraft should be changed to either 38 or 43, since there is a +2 modifier from intelligence, and the saving throw bonus is based on the total skill, not ranks. Personally, I would go for 43, even though this means dropping discipline to 42 (since this would make level 40 a cleric level). --The Krit 19:43, June 3, 2011 (UTC) Invalid AB You have +22 magical ab with a cap of 20. So your AB maximum is 61 not 63. ILKAY 14:53, June 3, 2011 (UTC) * Actually, the maximum AB is 60, not 61. (43 unbuffed + 6 buffed strength - 2 dual-wielding - 2 flurry of blows + 1 bless + 1 aid + 3 divine power + 2 battletide + 1 prayer + 5 divine favor + 4 battle mastery = 62 AB, without the cap) --The Krit 22:03, June 29, 2011 (UTC) Ability progression If I counted right, this build gets cleric level 12 at character level 25, so does not yet have level 7 spells at that point. Level 26 is not a clerical level, so the earliest a base wisdom of 17 is important is character level 27. Wouldn't it be beneficial to not take cleric 13 until character level 28 (at most a delay of 1 level), then rearrange the ability progression to 2 strength, 2 dexterity, 2 strength, 2 wisdom, then 2 strength? That puts wisdom 17 also at character level 28, and reduces the number of levels with an odd ability score. (Maybe also add a sentence mentioning that dexterity 15 is required by character level 15, wisdom 17 is desired by cleric level 13, and wisdom 18 by cleric level 15?) --The Krit 23:50, June 5, 2011 (UTC) *Updated the spellcraft skill, added a note to attribute point progression, and changed and added note to level progression. Hope, that works a bit better, appreciate the feed back Krit. --Lightkeep 06:03, 6 June 2011 * I was thinking about this some more, and character level 27 is a good time for a monk level (getting tumble ranks up to 30, for +6 AC). So I think I'll go ahead and add that to the level progression, and update the ability progression since wisdom 17 will not be needed until character level 28. --The Krit 01:00, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Feats I'd probably swap ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting. At level 15, base attack is 12, so there are three main-hand attacks per round. I'd rather get +2 on four attacks (three main-hand and one off-hand) than +4 on one attack. --The Krit 01:25, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Attacks per round Where is the second free attack coming from? There's one from flurry of blows, and the other is from what? --The Krit 21:58, June 29, 2011 (UTC) * Since no one knows, I am removing that from the article. --The Krit 11:20, July 15, 2011 (UTC) :* Looks like you removed the second off-hand attack. I think the progression was supposed to be 60/57/54/51/48/45 main hand, 60/55 off-hand, 62/57 haste + flurry of blows (order of off-hand and extra switched). Thus the unswitched without haste would amount to 60/57/54/51/48/45/62 60/55. WhiZard 21:17, July 15, 2011 (UTC) ::* No, I removed the second free attack. It's just that back when I made the free attacks follow a -5 progression (instead of all being at full base attack), I failed to notice that the dual-wield penalty needed to be removed from the free attacks and that the off-hand progression needed to follow a -5 progression instead of -3. (Besides, you think it is more likely that someone would put the attacks out of order, than someone would think monks always use a -3 progression?) If you want to go analyze the intent, it might be good to go back to the original progression (63/60/57/54/51/48/63/63; 63/60) or compare it to the unbuffed progression (which had always lacked a second free attack). Anyway, adjusting for those factors now. --The Krit 14:58, July 16, 2011 (UTC) :::* Apologies I saw the 57 and thought it was an oversight in free-attacks vs. off-hand. Looking at the character sheet it does incorrectly list the off-hand at -3 progression. So likely the poster familiar with 1.67 or prior version extra-attacks and using the character sheet came up with the AB abnormally high. WhiZard 16:18, July 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::* Hey, at least we got the correct modifiers on the correct attacks now (I think). I'm still disappointed in myself that I missed the dual-wielding part earlier. (I can accept missing an intricacy of the monk UBAB since I tend to avoid monks, so lack the same sort of familiarity.) --The Krit 22:31, July 17, 2011 (UTC) :::* Also there is the query as to why the poster put haste in the AC bonuses yet did not take the travel domain. WhiZard 16:25, July 16, 2011 (UTC) ::::* Heh. The AC portion is next for me to look over. I'm guessing that line will be coming out? --The Krit 22:31, July 17, 2011 (UTC) Justification of buff list Moved from the article by The Krit 23:54, June 30, 2011 (UTC). The main reason why I feel this is pertainent and why, I feel, there are only a few other caster builds in this section is because most people feel that buffed AB doesn't reflect the true strength of the character; while I maintain that these buffs are as much a part of this cleric classed character as devastating critical is to a fighter classed character. The reason why I feel this way is that a non caster class can't even have these buffs, unless they take bard/rogue and even then the access is module based because of item/scroll dependancy. --Lightkeep 21:21, June 2, 2011 * I think you are quite off the mark here (although don't get defensive until you read why). While there are only a few other caster builds in this section, it is rather presumptuous to think the reason is anything other than there being not many builds overall in this section. With only 16 builds (including this one), there are fewer builds than classes, so of course some types of builds are going to be underrepresented. All that can really be concluded is that caster builds have not been the top priority for the other five people who have contributed builds here. Before drawing conclusions as to what types of builds tend to be neglected, you should look at a wider sampling of builds, such as the archive of the ECBG's build forum. (NWNWiki has had 6 authors contributing 16 builds total; the ECBG has 21 authors who have contributed at least 16 builds each, plus less prolific character builders.) Of the 2,030 searchable builds from that forum, 572 have at least 15 levels of cleric, druid, sorcerer, or wizard, so would fit your implied criteria of what constitutes a caster build. (That's 28% of the builds.) : The other point you seem to be wrong about is "most people feel that buffed AB doesn't reflect the true strength of the character". I did a quick survey of some NWN character builders, and while my sample size is too small for conclusive results, there were 5 people who preferred to see buffed stats, possibly in addition to seeing unbuffed stats; 2 who indicated a preference for unbuffed stats, but did not object to seeing buffed stats also listed; and only 1 who did not care to see buffed stats. Your assertion that most people disagree with your viewpoint appears to be wrong, as the majority of these people agreed that buffs are part of a caster build. --The Krit 17:25, July 1, 2011 (UTC) Negatives It looks like some anonymous editor got ticked off at this build for some reason, and saw fit to point out the negatives. However, are these negatives accurate? "Huge dispel vulnerability" -- the AC total is without buffs, so no dispel issue there. The AB total with buffs focuses on the AB for 24 seconds, so is that even enough time to worry about getting diseplled? "Low basic AB" -- Is it really that low? Even after accounting for the fact that an extra 4AB can be readily obtained by not dual-wielding and not using flurry of blows? "insufficient spell resistance" -- most characters do not get innate spell resistance, and this build does not tout the token amount it gets. "low armor" -- Is it really that low, after accounting for being able to boost it through both dexterity and wisdom? "Stats dependance - build demands almost all stats to compete both with survivability and damage - Str, Dext, Wisdom and Const." -- I do not know what this one is trying to say. Demanding a stat? "Also huge discipline skill deficit." -- Discipline is almost maxed out. How can that be a huge deficit? "Kamas are good speed weapons but its weapon size is vulnerable to disarm" -- what is a speed weapon, and does a monk really care that much about being disarmed? (If they do, why do so many monk builds focus on dual-wielding kamas?) I am tempted to just delete all of these additions (maybe keep the low AB and low AC comments if they prove true), but I'll let the builders analyze this first. --The Krit 15:23, July 16, 2011 (UTC)